1. DAVID MARK CORDREY
2. JAMES P. CRISCIONE
3. PAUL J. MESSER
4. DAVID NATHAN STEIN
5. PAUL ALAN SCHELLY
6. GLORIA MARGRET GONG
7. COLIN JON KOOYUMJIAN
8. DENNIS HARRY JOHNSTON
9. JUAN CHACON
10. DAVID JOSEPH BARAN
11. DAVID PHILLIP SCHLUCKEBIER
12. ANA MARIA PATINO
13. KEVIN FRANCIS CHRISTOF
14. CRAIG MICHAEL SILMAN JR.

DAVID MARK CORDREY [#136671], 46, of Beverly Hills was disbarred Dec. 17, 2009, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

In a default proceeding that consolidated two matters, the State Bar Court found that Cordrey failed to comply with a 2008 disciplinary order. He did not submit to the court an affidavit stating that he notified his clients, opposing counsel and other interested parties of his suspension, as required by rule 9.20, and he failed to file a quarterly probation report or a criminal probation statement. Failure to comply with rule 9.20 is grounds for disbarment.

In the underlying matter, Cordrey committed misconduct in seven matters, involving six clients, including failing to perform legal services competently, return unearned fees, communicate or return a client’s file. He also engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, and he was convicted of driving under the influence.

He also was disciplined earlier in 2008 for maintaining an unjust action.

State Bar Court Judge Richard Platel recommended Cordrey’s disbarment in view of “the serious and unexplained nature of [his] misconduct, the lack of participation in these proceedings, the lack of any mitigating factors, the existence of a prior disciplinary record and respondent’s failure to comply with orders of the California Supreme Court.”

JAMES P. CRISCIONE [#105622], 52, of North Hollywood was disbarred Dec. 17, 2009, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Criscione failed to comply with a 2008 disciplinary order. He did not submit to the court an affidavit stating that he notified his clients, opposing counsel and other interested parties of his suspension, as required by rule 9.20.

The court found he committed misconduct in four client matters, including failing to perform legal services competently, refund unearned fees, respond to client inquiries or cooperate with the bar’s investigation, and he improperly withdrew from representation.

In recommending his disbarment, State Bar Court Judge Richard Platel said that in addition to not complying with rule 9.20, Criscione “has demonstrated an unwillingness to comply with the professional obligations and rules of court imposed on California attorneys although he has been given the opportunity to do so.”

PAUL J. MESSER [#224537], 39, of San Diego was disbarred Dec. 17, 2009, and was ordered to make restitution and comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court determined that Messer committed 11 acts of misconduct, including numerous acts of moral turpitude, in two matters.

In handling the probate of his client’s deceased wife, he said he would charge advance fees and costs of $1,500, including but not limited to filing fees. About a month later, he told the client the attorney’s fees would be $35,000, and an additional $32,000 would be required to prepare the estate tax return and pay estate taxes. According to Judge Richard Honn, who recommended Messer’s disbarment, the statements were false and were made, in part, to obtain payment of $67,000 from the client. Nonetheless, the client paid the bills and received no services in return.

Messer forged the client’s signature on documents filed with the court that indicated no fees had been paid.

Messer left the legal help center where he worked without notifying the client or the court, and neither could reach him. The client appeared at a hearing and notified the court of the situation. He was ordered to provide an accounting with the court but did not do so. When he finally filed a supplement to his original report, it contained numerous misstatements, made, in part, “to conceal his misconduct,” Honn wrote.

Messer filed a third supplement that also contained misstatements.

The court found him in contempt and ordered Messer to repay the $67,000. He also was required to execute a deed of trust on property he owned in San Diego to secure his obligation to refund the $67,000. Messer accepted a stipulation, knowing that his property had been lost to foreclosure. Honn said Messer agreed to the stipulation “in part, to obtain a reduced sentence from the court.”

When the State Bar opened an investigation, Messer made a series of misstatements to the investigator, including a claim that he “repeatedly” tried to refund the money to his client.

Honn found that Messer committed numerous acts of moral turpitude by misappropriating $67,000, making numerous misrepresentations and forging his client’s signature on pleadings submitted to the court. He also abandoned his client, collected an illegal fee, did not deposit the money in his trust account and violated court orders.

In a second similar probate matter, Messer filed a probate petition after the client gave him a $1,000 advance fee. He later told the client he owed $10,000 which the client paid, although the court had not approved payment of that amount. Messer later filed an appraisal of the client’s estate, changing the date from 2004 to 2005 and forging his client’s signature. The value of the estate also was listed at $253,000 more than its actual value. The appraisal included authorization for Messer to receive $10,000 in “statutory attorney fees,” although the client already had paid that amount.

Messer stopped working on the case without notifying the client and he also moved his office and disconnected his phone without providing any contact information. The client had to hire a new lawyer who corrected the appraised value of the estate and determined that Messer was owed $5,373 in compensation.

Honn found that Messer committed acts of moral turpitude, abandoned the client and charged an illegal fee.

In recommending Messer’s disbarment, Honn wrote, “The serious and unexplained nature of the misconduct; the lack of participation in these proceedings; as well as the self-interest and dishonesty underlying (Messer’s) actions suggest that he is capable of future wrongdoing and raise concerns about his ability or willingness to comply with his ethical responsibilities to the public and to the State Bar.”

DAVID NATHAN STEIN [#202448], 39, of Walnut Creek was disbarred Dec. 24, 2009, and was ordered to make restitution and comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Stein committed 21 acts of misconduct in six consolidated cases.

In one case, for example, he was hired to handle a criminal case and paid by the client’s mother. He never obtained his client’s written consent to the payment of the legal fees. After appearing at a hearing, Stein was ordered inactive by the State Bar Court and he stopped responding to the client’s phone calls. The client appeared twice in court without Stein and asked for a public defender. Stein did not refund the unearned fee.

In a divorce case, Stein did not appear at eight hearings or account for client funds, and the court imposed sanctions of $800 on him. Another client seeking an annulment of his two-week marriage hired Stein, but he filed a petition for dissolution by checking the wrong box on a form he submitted to the court. He subsequently was suspended and did no further work on the case.

Stein’s misconduct included failing to perform legal services competently, refund unearned fees, communicate with clients, account for client funds, obey court orders or cooperate with the bar’s investigation, and he committed acts of moral turpitude, accepted fees from a non-client and improperly withdrew from representation.

He also was disciplined earlier last year for failure to perform legal services competently, communicate with his client, return her file or cooperate with the bar’s investigation, and he maintained an unjust action before the court.

PAUL ALAN SCHELLY [#54505], 68, of Pomona was disbarred Dec. 24, 2009, and was ordered to make restitution and comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

The State Bar Court review department upheld a recommendation by a hearing judge that Schelly be disbarred. He sought review, arguing that the punishment was excessive.

An immigration lawyer, Schelly was suspended in 2004 and then did not pay the discipline costs associated with his membership fee. Although he received a letter notifying him that payment of those costs was a condition of his return to active status, he testified that he didn’t open the letter. However, he instructed his wife to pay the costs. Because she sent a personal check instead of the required certified payment, Schelly remained suspended.

He appeared three times at immigration hearings until an immigration judge informed him he had not been reinstated. He also was suspended by the immigration court for 60 days. The bar court found that he violated the California Supreme Court order that prohibited him from holding himself out as entitled to practice in California and for misrepresenting his status to the immigration judge. The court also found that those misrepresentations, as well as his statement to the bar’s probation office that he had not practiced law while suspended, amounted to moral turpitude.

Schelly failed to pay another client’s unearned fees or communicate with that client, and the review department found that he used “inappropriate tactics to intimidate” the client into paying. One of his staff threatened to have the client deported and Schelly treated her in an abusive fashion, the review judges said. Using his position of trust to the detriment of vulnerable clients is considered an act of moral turpitude.

Schelly has a record of three prior disciplines resulting from multiple acts of misconduct. His disciplinary record, wrote Judge JoAnn Remke, “shows a disturbing pattern of his failure to properly communicate with clients, and to ensure fees or judgments were properly paid to clients, as well as his propensity to engage in acts amounting to moral turpitude, either intentionally or through gross negligence.”

GLORIA MARGRET GONG [#163418], 56, of Bakersfield was disbarred Jan. 1, 2010, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Gong committed three acts of misconduct in two matters.

She was hired to file a motion to reconsider the denial of her client’s application to be a legal resident. When she filed nothing, the client hired a new lawyer and complained to the bar. A second client hired her to handle his immigration matter, and although she filed a petition, she did no further work before notifying the client she planned to retire. She also said she was turning over the case to another lawyer, whom the client declined to hire. He asked for a refund of his $1,500 fee, but Gong did not refund any money.

The bar court found that Gong failed to perform legal services competently or refund an unearned fee.

She has been disciplined twice previously; once for failing to comply with probation requirements. In addition to the probation revocation, Judge Donald F. Miles said he recommended Gong’s disbarment because the “present misconduct is similar to the misconduct that resulted in her first imposition of discipline. Both cases involved her failing to perform with competence resulting in harm to her client. Based on the repetition of respondent’s misconduct and her failure to participate in the present proceedings, the court finds little reason to believe that she no longer poses a threat to public protection.”

COLIN JON KOOYUMJIAN [#172216], 42, of Friant was disbarred Jan. 14, 2010, and was ordered to make restitution and comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found Kooyumjian committed five acts of misconduct.

He was hired to handle four matters for an individual who had been convicted of manslaughter: to appeal his conviction, to investigate possible improper jury conduct, to defend him in a civil suit brought by the victim’s family, and to file bankruptcy if it were necessary to protect his assets. The client paid a $45,000 advance fee — $25,000 for the criminal appeals, $10,000 to defend the civil suit and $10,000 to investigate the jury’s conduct. Kooyumjian met with his client once.

Although he filed the appeal, he did not file an opening brief or address any jury tampering issues. The appeal was denied. Kooyumjian did not notify the client or take any further action, nor did he investigate the jury conflict issue.

He did appear at the civil suit trial without consulting his client regarding his defense. The client wished to testify, but barring that (due to his incarceration), he wished to be deposed. However, Kooyumjian simply submitted the testimony from the criminal trial at the civil trial. He did not respond to three court orders and a series of 10 requests for admission were deemed admitted against the client that established both liability and malice. The court awarded a judgment of more than $500,000 against Kooyumjian’s client.

Kooyumjian did not notify the client, who was informed by a neighbor that he lost his house.

Despite his status requests, the client only learned the result of his cases by contacting the courts directly, nearly four years after the fact in the civil matter.

Judge Pat McElroy found that Kooyumjian failed to perform legal services competently, communicate with his client, refund unearned fees or cooperate with the bar’s investigation.

Kooyumjian also was suspended and placed on probation in 2007 but did not file quarterly probation reports, comply with substance abuse conditions or meet restitution requirements. In that matter, Kooyumjian committed serious misconduct, including failing to perform legal services competently, communicate, release client papers and property, refund unearned fees or cooperate with the bar’s investigation, and he made seven court appearances on three different days while on inactive status.

In recommending Kooyumjian’s disbarment, McElroy noted that three of his clients in both disciplinary proceedings against him were incarcerated. His actions, she said, “strongly support a finding that, for whatever reason, respondent is either unwilling or unable to undertake a rehabilitative course under the watchful eye of the State Bar or to conform his conduct to the standards of the profession.”

DENNIS HARRY JOHNSTON [#82017], 57, of Anaheim was disbarred Jan. 14, 2010, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

In a default proceeding initiated as a result of Johnston’s misdemeanor conviction for battery of a spouse, the State Bar also charged him with failing to comply with probation conditions, four acts of moral turpitude and failing to comply with Rule 9.20, which is grounds for disbarment. He did not submit to the State Bar Court an affidavit stating that he notified his clients, opposing counsel and other interested parties of his 2008 suspension.

Johnston has been convicted three times of driving under the influence and in 2005, of battery. As a result of the first two DUIs, he was disciplined by the Supreme Court and placed on probation for five years. As part of the stipulation he reached with the bar, Johnston was to enroll in the Lawyer Assistance Program. He also was on criminal probation and violated the terms of that probation. Nonetheless, he signed several probation reports to the State Bar stating that he had complied with his criminal probation. After a third DUI arrest, he still did not notify the bar of his ongoing criminal issues. And after his battery arrest, he continued to state that he was in full compliance with the bar probation requirements. He was terminated from the LAP for violating its requirements.

The bar court found that he violated the terms of his probation by filing reports late and he committed four acts of moral turpitude by making misrepresentations in his probation reports. It also found that his battery conviction did not involve either moral turpitude or other misconduct warranting discipline.

Judge Richard Platel recommended Johnston’s disbarment “in view of the serious and unexplained nature of (his) misconduct, the lack of participation in these proceedings, the lack of any mitigating factors, the existence of a prior disciplinary record, and (Johnston’s) failure to comply with orders of the California Supreme Court.”

JUAN CHACON [#141465], 68, of Sacramento was disbarred Jan. 14, 2010, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

The State Bar Court review department found that Chacon committed 13 acts of misconduct in three matters and rejected a hearing judge’s suspension recommendation, instead increasing the punishment to disbarment. He has a record of three prior disciplines as well.

Chacon represented a client in both a workers’ compensation matter and a personal injury case. He did not tell the client he would be suspended for 75 days in 2003, instead telling her he would be off work for two months. The client had a right to make an informed decision about whether to hire a new lawyer.

In another personal injury case, he informed his client about his pending suspension the day before it took effect. The client signed a substitution form that placed her in pro per. Chacon did not refer her to another attorney or make arrangements for substitute counsel. The client was unable to retrieve her file.

He filed a lawsuit on behalf of another client, but provided discovery responses four months late. Four days before his suspension was to begin, he told the client there was a settlement offer and became angry when she asked for time to think about it. He remained attorney of record at the client’s request, but she could not contact him during the suspension to discuss the settlement offer. He then closed his law office and moved to Tennessee.

The client filed a small claims action against Chacon and received a judgment for $5,500 plus $105 in costs. When he received a settlement check for $7,501, he moved to vacate the small claims judgment, asserting the client caused the delay by refusing to sign the settlement agreement for many months. In fact, he had made no effort to obtain the client’s signature until after she filed the small claims action.

Chacon and the client reached a settlement and she endorsed the settlement check; it was to be deposited in Chacon’s trust account and she was to receive $5,501. Instead, he returned the check to opposing counsel and asked for separate checks, one for him and one for the client. At the time, he was suspended and said opening a client trust account would amount to practicing while suspended. The client finally received funds from the opposing counsel several months after she had reached an agreement with Chacon.

As part of his suspension, Chacon was to comply with a probation requirement that he have no clients. He filed an affidavit with the State Bar Court to that effect, even though he did have a client.

The review department found that he failed to notify a client of significant developments or respond to client inquiries, return a client file, deposit client funds in trust, promptly pay client funds or perform legal services competently, and he improperly withdrew from representation and committed acts of moral turpitude.

The review panel gave Chacon limited mitigation for cooperating with the bar’s investigation and presenting witnesses who testified about his good character. The three prior disciplines were imposed for misappropriation of client funds and for violating probation requirements.

Judge Catherine Purcell, writing for a three-judge panel, said that Chacon should be disbarred because of his extensive discipline record and multiple acts of misconduct. She noted that he “committed significant misconduct after the Supreme Court imposed discipline in his third disciplinary proceeding, indicating to us that he will not conform his behavior to the rules of professional conduct . . . .We conclude that Chacon’s repeated encounters with the disciplinary system have not rehabilitated or deterred him from committing further misconduct.”

DAVID JOSEPH BARAN [#105376], 58, of Beverly Hills was disbarred Jan. 14, 2010, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Baran violated probation conditions attached to a 2008 disciplinary order imposed after he was terminated from the Alternative Discipline Program for lawyers with mental health or substance abuse issues. He had earlier stipulated to misconduct in six matters. He violated the following probation requirements: He failed to contact the bar’s probation office, provide a medical waiver, obtain a physical/mental condition exam or get treatment for his condition, submit a medical report or file a quarterly probation report.

He also was required to comply with rule 9.20 by submitting to the State Bar Court an affidavit stating that he notified his clients, opposing counsel and other pertinent parties of his suspension. He did not do so on time.

In addition to the underlying discipline in this case, Baran was disciplined in 2002.

DAVID PHILLIP SCHLUCKEBIER [#179034], 52, of Koror, Palau, was disbarred Jan. 14, 2010, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

Schluckebier was disbarred in Illinois in 2008 for money-laundering in Palau and engaging in dishonest conduct by giving false testimony in his wife’s criminal trial. His actions amounted to moral turpitude, and the California State Bar Court determined he violated the state’s professional conduct rules. He did not participate in any of the proceedings brought against him.

Schluckebier, who was licensed in the Republic of Palau and worked as an attorney for the Senate Legal Counsel Office, married a woman who operated a restaurant that fronted as a prostitution business. She deposited some of the funds from the business in a joint account she held with Schluckebier.

She was charged with money-laundering and, during her trial, Schluckebier falsely testified that the money in their account came from his salary, his family and wedding gifts. He knew the money was from prostitution.

After the wife’s trial, Schluckebier was given an opportunity to respond to allegations by the Attorney Disciplinary Tribunal of Palau that he was aware of his wife’s business. He did not respond and the charges — giving false testimony, knowingly receiving proceeds from his wife’s illegal business and attempting to conceal the nature of the money — were deemed admitted. The charges constituted moral turpitude and he also was accused of once thwarting a police sting of the business. Schluckebier was disbarred in Palau.

ANA MARIA PATINO [#86606], 61, of Laguna Beach was disbarred Jan. 14, 2010, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Patino failed to file an affidavit, as required by rule 9.20, that she had notified her clients, opposing counsel and other pertinent parties of her suspension. Failure to comply with the rule is grounds for disbarment.

She was placed on interim suspension in 2008 following a felony conviction for stalking. She also was publicly reproved in 1993 and suspended in 2006 for committing acts of moral turpitude by misappropriating another attorney’s identity and then using it to gain access to Claralaw.net, a private subscription service operated under the auspices of the California Public Defenders Association.

KEVIN FRANCIS CHRISTOF [#194684], 48, of Santa Monica was disbarred Jan. 21, 2010, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Christof failed to file an affidavit, as required by rule 9.20, that he had notified his clients, opposing counsel and other pertinent parties of his suspension. Failure to comply with the rule is grounds for disbarment.

He was disciplined in 2007 for misconduct in three client matters in Arizona, where he was also licensed to practice law, including failing to perform competently, communicate and return unearned fees.

CRAIG MICHAEL SILMAN JR. [#218914], 41, of Santa Clara was disbarred Jan. 21, 2010, and was ordered to comply with rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court.

In a default proceeding, the State Bar Court found that Silman committed multiple acts of misconduct in two matters, including misappropriating $89,844.53 and failing to comply with rule 9.20.

In an effort to secure settlement funds for pending lawsuits regarding ownership of a piece of real property, Silman agreed to assist his client in obtaining a loan against the client’s home. The client received a loan of $375,000 and gave more than $240,000 to Silman to hold in his client trust account. They were the only funds in the account.

Silman transferred almost $13,000 to his general operating account without the client’s knowledge; he later moved about $7,000 back to the trust account. Over subsequent months, he withdrew an additional $52,000 from the account without the client’s knowledge, using the money for his personal use and benefit.

Silman later transferred $118,000 from the client trust account to a title company in order to fund settlement of a case. Although the client instructed Silman to authorize disbursements for the client’s use, Silman told the title company to provide him with more than $17,000. In total, he misappropriated $89,844.53 although he did make payments of about $19,000 on the client’s behalf.

Silman was disciplined in 2008 and was ordered to submit an affidavit to the State Bar Court stating that he notified his clients, opposing counsel and other interested parties of his suspension. He never submitted the affidavit.

That discipline was imposed when Silman did not comply with probation conditions attached to a 2006 private reproval for failure to perform legal services or communicate with a client.

 Caution!  More than 200,000 attorneys are eligible to practice law in California. Many attorneys share the same names. All discipline reports are taken from State Bar Court documents and should be read carefully for names, ages, addresses and bar numbers. Read the Discipline Key for an explanation of the different levels of disciplinary action. Use Attorney Search to check an attorney's official bar membership record.